Jump to content
IGNORED

Basement Rovers dustbin thread


42nite

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

Although a prosecution can be victimless, I don’t think you can have a non willing restraining order. It wouldn’t work because there’d be no applicant. 

Although a prosecution can be victimless, I don’t think you can have a non willing restraining order. It wouldn’t work because there’d be no applicant. 

Before the advent of body worn video, these cases very rarely made it to court( still seldom now).

Without knowing the full details of the case of course, that will come out later. What is known, and captured evidentially is:-

The call to the Police was made by Mrs B, asking Police to turn up and remove him from the address. She may have made disclosures about what has happened.

When the officers have turned up, she has injuries, and the people present would have probably spoken about what has happened. This is captured on the video.

It appears that Barton was arrested at the location (quoted arrested on the same day). So there was obviously a necessity for the officers to make that arrest at that point.

She, obviously doesn't want to make a complaint; and the other witnesses don't want to get involved. Probably as they know he's already got a court case hanging over him already. 

In some ways this is similiar to the Caroline Flack case. In that the boyfriend had injuries, and probably said what had happened. But didn't want her arrested/charged.

Ultimately, it's a question of positive action by the Police on that day. @Fordy62 and i have been involved in too many cases; where in the past the Police have walked away as no complaint. Only to be called back later to the same address to deal with something far more serious. Police officers would be done by the IOPC for such actions nowadays.

The CPS have a massive backlog of cases, and will only take to court; the cases where they feel the evidence is strong enough for a realistic prospect of conviction (his bad character also plays a big part here).

I think if she had made a complaint, he wouldn't have got bail, as he's already on Crown court bail for the other assault matter.

Whatever happens with these victimless cases. It at least highlights the violent nature of the defendant concerned. It won't help him that it's in front of a magistrates (aka no jury) either. They see these incidents day in,day out; and generally see through the legal nonsense put up by defence counsels.

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

Although a prosecution can be victimless, I don’t think you can have a non willing restraining order. It wouldn’t work because there’d be no applicant. 

 

3 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

Without knowing the full details of the case of course, that will come out later. What is known, and captured evidentially is:-

The call to the Police was made by Mrs B, asking Police to turn up and remove him from the address. She may have made disclosures about what has happened.

I think if she had made a complaint, he wouldn't have got bail, as he's already on Crown court bail for the other assault matter.

Whatever happens with these victimless cases. It at least highlights the violent nature of the defendant concerned. It won't help him that it's in front of a magistrates (aka no jury) either. They see these incidents day in,day out; and generally see through the legal nonsense put up by defence counsels.

Thank You both for your insight.

1. As it has been bothering me since the original Bristol Rovers statement, can either one of you confirm that their suggestion (statement) that the JB incident was a victimless crime (rather than a victimless prosecution) was a crass error? 

2. Given that the forthcoming trial will be be held in a magistrates court, rather than Crown Court, i.e. no jury, obviously our comments on this thread as to JB's character and potential guilt are not subject to the usual constraints (possible libel notwithstanding), but are either of you able to advise why JB was granted bail? As @NcnsBcfc says, JB was already on Crown Court bail following the Stendel case and, presumably, there were conditions attached to this bail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, myol'man said:

Squabbling like rats in a sack over on slagchat 

Just had a look 👀. Posters quitting, posters getting banned, mod getting told to quit. All very strange and very needy 
 

One thing Joey Barton has done has definitely split their small fanbase . Couple of early defeats for the fewers it will be time to break the popcorn out. 

Edited by Red Army 75
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/07/2021 at 09:22, 1960maaan said:

As I said, not sure of the details. What I read , and as it was Newspaper stories I can't say 100% true, she received a kick to the temple which left a golfball size lump. Now I would think it would warrant a visit to the Doctor at least. I also read, from early on , that his Wife didn't want to press charges. Not sure how this is going ahead if there is no one to be witness or to press charges as victim. Although I think calling it a victimless crime is a poor phrase to use.

Victimless crime doesn’t mean that there are no victims just that there are none forthcoming for a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

Thank You both for your insight.

1. As it has been bothering me since the original Bristol Rovers statement, can either one of you confirm that their suggestion (statement) that the JB incident was a victimless crime (rather than a victimless prosecution) was a crass error? 

2. Given that the forthcoming trial will be be held in a magistrates court, rather than Crown Court, i.e. no jury, obviously our comments on this thread as to JB's character and potential guilt are not subject to the usual constraints (possible libel notwithstanding), but are either of you able to advise why JB was granted bail? As @NcnsBcfc says, JB was already on Crown Court bail following the Stendel case and, presumably, there were conditions attached to this bail.

1. I genuinely don’t know if it was a crass error or some form of deliberate attempt to undermine things. They said they were quoting the prosecutor, but that’d require someone from the club to have been present at the hearing - surely they just haven’t taken Barton’s word for it? The only time you ever hear “victimless crime” tends to be either shoplifting from a larger retailer - but this isn’t a policing term because obviously it’s not true, or possibly simple possession of drugs. 
 

Either way, at best it’s wholly negligent and at worst it’s an evil attempt and undermining the judicial process. 
 

2. The police obviously bailed him the day after the offence. This would have been most likely because on the day they didn’t have sufficient evidence to change. When he returned on bail (or released pending investigation - which is very similar), they charged him. Now, because they initially released him and because he presumably behaved himself while on said bail (for this offence), it makes it 100x more difficult to then remand at a later time. This most recent charge is at the lowest end of the scale and magistrates are under immense pressure not to remand prisoners - overcrowding of prisons and cost of remand - that it was never likely he’d be remanded for a low level assault. Remands tend to get reserved for higher level assaults or for people who are much more likely to abscond/offend on bail/interfere with justice. If he were to commit another assault id say remand chances would increase ten fold. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Army 75 said:

Just had a look 👀. Posters quitting, posters getting banned, mod getting told to quit. All very strange and very needy 
 

One thing Joey Barton has done has definitely split their small fanbase . Couple of early defeats for the fewers it will be time to break the popcorn out. 

Thanks to your post, I also had a peak. I didn't get past the "missing posters" thread. 

They are very unhappy with some (one?) of their Moderators in particular, but it seems to have been festering for a while and the Jailbird Barton has brought it to the foreground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poll amused me.

image.thumb.png.35ae30d1c82c05b985fcfd65f69b532a.png

I'm thinking:

  • Of the 115 who voted yes, 15 have season tickets and the other hundred get passed season tickets over the fence
  • Of the 46 who voted no, 45 would never go to games anyway
  • Of the 13 who were undecided, 10 want an excuse to go and support the City instead
  • 25,000 were locked outside of the poll
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

1. I genuinely don’t know if it was a crass error or some form of deliberate attempt to undermine things. They said they were quoting the prosecutor, but that’d require someone from the club to have been present at the hearing - surely they just haven’t taken Barton’s word for it? The only time you ever hear “victimless crime” tends to be either shoplifting from a larger retailer - but this isn’t a policing term because obviously it’s not true, or possibly simple possession of drugs. 
 

Either way, at best it’s wholly negligent and at worst it’s an evil attempt and undermining the judicial process. 
 

2. The police obviously bailed him the day after the offence. This would have been most likely because on the day they didn’t have sufficient evidence to change. When he returned on bail (or released pending investigation - which is very similar), they charged him. Now, because they initially released him and because he presumably behaved himself while on said bail (for this offence), it makes it 100x more difficult to then remand at a later time. This most recent charge is at the lowest end of the scale and magistrates are under immense pressure not to remand prisoners - overcrowding of prisons and cost of remand - that it was never likely he’d be remanded for a low level assault. Remands tend to get reserved for higher level assaults or for people who are much more likely to abscond/offend on bail/interfere with justice. If he were to commit another assault id say remand chances would increase ten fold. 

Thanks for sharing your knowledge @Fordy62 - very interesting to get a take on this from those of you who are involved in the legal system.

With regards to the awful statement, which I understand has now been amended on the Rovers website, the club were originally quoting from the Evening Standard report with regards to what the Crown Prosecutor had said in Court.  The Evening Standard have also amended their online copy now.  I saw online that some legal eagle with a blue tick had picked up the Standard reporter's error - which, I understand, should have read "victimless prosecution".  I would liked to have thought that the club's legal adviser would have queried the accuracy of this before the notorious statement was signed off - maybe the tea lady signed it off, it's Rovers after all.  Apart from that, there was no need to include it in the club statement, and I think that they were trying to mislead those who didn't have knowledge of legal terminology.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Army 75 said:

Just had a look 👀. Posters quitting, posters getting banned, mod getting told to quit. All very strange and very needy 
 

One thing Joey Barton has done has definitely split their small fanbase . Couple of early defeats for the fewers it will be time to break the popcorn out. 

All getting very heated. If i was Wael i would unveil the new stadium plans to distract them.......oh wait...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red Army 75 said:

Just had a look 👀. Posters quitting, posters getting banned, mod getting told to quit. All very strange and very needy 
 

One thing Joey Barton has done has definitely split their small fanbase . Couple of early defeats for the fewers it will be time to break the popcorn out. 

Sure they still have 100k members and 20k waiting to join up anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CiderJar said:

This poll amused me.

image.thumb.png.35ae30d1c82c05b985fcfd65f69b532a.png

I'm thinking:

  • Of the 115 who voted yes, 15 have season tickets and the other hundred get passed season tickets over the fence
  • Of the 46 who voted no, 45 would never go to games anyway
  • Of the 13 who were undecided, 10 want an excuse to go and support the City instead
  • 25,000 were locked outside of the poll

It makes me think of those adverts you see on tv for make ups or face treatments, in the small print at the bottom it will say something like "78% of 86 women agree". (Thats 60.7 btw, makes you wonder what the other 99.3 of that .7 of a woman thought) :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, In the Net said:

Thanks for sharing your knowledge @Fordy62 - very interesting to get a take on this from those of you who are involved in the legal system.

With regards to the awful statement, which I understand has now been amended on the Rovers website, the club were originally quoting from the Evening Standard report with regards to what the Crown Prosecutor had said in Court.  The Evening Standard have also amended their online copy now.  I saw online that some legal eagle with a blue tick had picked up the Standard reporter's error - which, I understand, should have read "victimless prosecution".  I would liked to have thought that the club's legal adviser would have queried the accuracy of this before the notorious statement was signed off - maybe the tea lady signed it off, it's Rovers after all.  Apart from that, there was no need to include it in the club statement, and I think that they were trying to mislead those who didn't have knowledge of legal terminology.

I would doubt very much that the club’s legal advisor saw the statement before it was published as, in addition to the ‘victimless crime’ wording, the statement even referred to the matter as being ‘sub judicial’, when the correct term is, of course, sub judice.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

Thank You both for your insight.

1. As it has been bothering me since the original Bristol Rovers statement, can either one of you confirm that their suggestion (statement) that the JB incident was a victimless crime (rather than a victimless prosecution) was a crass error? 

2. Given that the forthcoming trial will be be held in a magistrates court, rather than Crown Court, i.e. no jury, obviously our comments on this thread as to JB's character and potential guilt are not subject to the usual constraints (possible libel notwithstanding), but are either of you able to advise why JB was granted bail? As @NcnsBcfc says, JB was already on Crown Court bail following the Stendel case and, presumably, there were conditions attached to this bail.

I think @Fordy62 has covered the bail aspect.

In some ways, Mrs B not supporting hasn't helped him on this matter. She has injuries(head injury, bloody nose). If she had seen a doctor, or allowed them to be documented evidentially; then it probably would have been a S47 ABH (actual bodily harm). 

That is an either way offence (ie can be heard in Crown or magistrates, at the discretion of the defence).

Because of her position. He was charged with a Common assault by beating (Battery), as the nature of the injuries can't be ascertained. This is a summary only offence (Magistrates only). As i said in the original post, i can see a DJ (District judge sitting in on it). Lynne Matthews is the main one in Bristol, and she, like others nationwide doesn't suffer fools ( check out her rioters comments).

The aspect of libel is still relevant regardless, of the nature of the Court. People posting on this, need to be careful; and to double check that they are either quoting a media piece, or something that has been published already.

Mods will probably have to keep an eye on this topic unfortunately.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, In the Net said:

Thanks for sharing your knowledge @Fordy62 - very interesting to get a take on this from those of you who are involved in the legal system.

With regards to the awful statement, which I understand has now been amended on the Rovers website, the club were originally quoting from the Evening Standard report with regards to what the Crown Prosecutor had said in Court.  The Evening Standard have also amended their online copy now.  I saw online that some legal eagle with a blue tick had picked up the Standard reporter's error - which, I understand, should have read "victimless prosecution".  I would liked to have thought that the club's legal adviser would have queried the accuracy of this before the notorious statement was signed off - maybe the tea lady signed it off, it's Rovers after all.  Apart from that, there was no need to include it in the club statement, and I think that they were trying to mislead those who didn't have knowledge of legal terminology.

Would/could that be the same legal advisor that told anybody who was listening that the club had a watertight case against Sainsburys a few years ago?

Yeah, I wouldn't count on the "legal expert" that they have to know the difference between a chicken and a cow!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NcnsBcfc said:

I think @Fordy62 has covered the bail aspect.

In some ways, Mrs B not supporting hasn't helped him on this matter. She has injuries(head injury, bloody nose). If she had seen a doctor, or allowed them to be documented evidentially; then it probably would have been a S47 ABH (actual bodily harm). 

That is an either way offence (ie can be heard in Crown or magistrates, at the discretion of the defence).

Because of her position. He was charged with a Common assault by beating (Battery), as the nature of the injuries can't be ascertained. This is a summary only offence (Magistrates only). As i said in the original post, i can see a DJ (District judge sitting in on it). Lynne Matthews is the main one in Bristol, and she, like others nationwide doesn't suffer fools ( check out her rioters comments).

The aspect of libel is still relevant regardless, of the nature of the Court. People posting on this, need to be careful; and to double check that they are either quoting a media piece, or something that has been published already.

Mods will probably have to keep an eye on this topic unfortunately.

Indeed, it was the possible libel issue that was annoying me when the issue was first being discussed on here on the weekend.

JB had been charged with ‘assault by beating’; not to be trivialised, but at the lower (lowest?) end of assault charges, and reference was made simply of the ‘victim’ being a woman, i.e. she had not been identified.

For all anybody on here knew, the ‘victim’ could have been a neighbour, yet there were some on here who were suggesting that he had attacked or beaten up his wife.

Whilst I am sure we all had our suspicions, Sunday was not the time to air them on this forum nor, indeed, would it be prudent to do so at any time prior to the conclusion of his trial.

Having said that, I should be astonished were he to be found Not Guilty - his guilt or otherwise will be decided by an experienced magistrate and not a jury of his peers, thus somebody who is less likely to be swayed by his legal team’s argument - for the threshold is very low and he (JB) seems to be suggesting simply that the allegations have been exaggerated.

To take a slightly different scenario, if one were to defend oneself against a similar charge by saying ‘Yes, I pushed him, but not as hard as he claims’, surely that would be sufficient to be found guilty of ‘assault by beating’.

Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Victimless crime doesn’t mean that there are no victims just that there are none forthcoming for a case.

I have never heard the phrase "Victimless crime" in any legal or Police setting. Plenty of times someone making an excuse for things done, oh well it's insured so they get their money back sort of thing. With any assault there is a victim, whether they press charges or not.  I think in this context it is a very unfortunate turn of phrase .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

I have never heard the phrase "Victimless crime" in any legal or Police setting. Plenty of times someone making an excuse for things done, oh well it's insured so they get their money back sort of thing. With any assault there is a victim, whether they press charges or not.  I think in this context it is a very unfortunate turn of phrase .

 

Possession of drugs, for instance, is a victimless crime, but very hard to see how it can apply to any firm of assault (except for well-documented cases in the past involving consenting adults…).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/07/2021 at 19:25, Gashead in Peace said:

 

On 27/07/2021 at 15:47, phantom said:

This is much bigger than club rivalry, the link for anyone who wants to donate

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/david-wilcox6

 

Good to keep reminding of the link

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Driving across Bodmin Moor this morning I got stuck behind a load of hobby cyclists swerving all over the road and not giving way. Imagine my surprise when I saw that two of them were bedecked in Da Famuzzzz Quarters.

I was ******* tempted to put them in the ditch it has to be said but just stuck to shouting `gashead *******` out of my window as I passed them.

Brightened up a dull working day if nothing else.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Basement Rovers dustbin thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...